Not so fast. It snowed in Texas this morning. AGW is saved! Because as Ex-Pres Clinton said: Warming Causes Cooling.

As it begins to melt, if it melts faster, it could change the composition of the north Atlantic and interrupt the normal flow of currents, and ironically global warming could make some places colder. – WJC

Don’t look for any admissions of being plain wrong or apologies for being twits, just expect leaders, politicians, and smug moonbat liberals to just fade away, slinking into the woodwork and shadows.

… want to make one more remark…

Obama’s science Czar, Holdren…

The adviser, John Holdren, said scientists generally are capable of defensiveness, bias and “misbehavior.” But he said the meaning of some of the statements in the emails isn’t clear, and that the significance of others has been exaggerated.

Yeah, I was always under the impression that for a thing to be a sound scientific theory it must be peer reviewed. This was blocked from same because “peer review” would have shown it false. Data flushed? Hmmm, why?

“Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

You happen to have caught me in a transitional period and hence not in the most generous of moods, but such is the way the world rolls. So be it. Let’s get started, shall we?

You either didn’t look at the links or have assumed that in all probability I am unaware of the issues. The third possibility is that you just enjoy making arguments that sound good but are not quite what they seem to be. I admit to a difficulty in agreeing with a quite a few of your statements and the choice of wording, because they have the form of tactics that are straight out of an assertiveness training manual.

“It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing” – This is an empty statement devoid of meaning. There isn’t a scientist alive that doesn’t agree the climate is changing because it always is changing, and it is always a matter of degree. The issue is that it is not a majority of scientists that agree that it is (1) AGW, or (2) a trend that exceeds normal variations when viewed on longer timescales. The statement leads the reader to assume that most all of the scientists out there are linked arm-in-arm in a bond of warm consensual brother/sister-hood.

“A minority, however, is skeptical.” – Again, a less discerning individual would take the wording prima facie – as a statement of obviousness. That isn’t correct, however. Saying something enough times will not make it true, but careful wording and saying it enough times may fool the reader into accepting it is true. There are a great many people who question the validity of the global warming argument and whether they are a minority or majority is irrelevant in light of the facts, which are only just now coming out; Prior to recent events the facts and evidence (data) leading to the supposed AGW conclusion were withheld. Fact: The original data was suppressed and is now lost to anyone who wishes to view it, unless they settle for “homogenized” (read: adulterated) data, whether this is by design or whether the Anglia group’s collective dog ate it.

“Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones.” – Such lacks of agreement are not just common, they are absolutely critical to the process. The very fact that any kind of dissension is suppressed at all reflects terribly on the AGW proponents. Dissension is reduced by free and open analysis of other’s work, the attempts to reproduce results, rebuttals of methodology and conclusions, and debate – leading towards a true and generally silent consensus – not fiat given by any one body or individual that the process has been concluded.

“But the case of climate change is different.” – No. No it is not. Like it or not, one side to a debate cannot unilaterally end the debate by claiming special circumstances when the circumstances themselves are at the heart of the debate.

“If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century…” – Three conditionals are presented here with the hidden-but-implied presumption that every one ultimately will be borne out as true, somehow sidestepping the fact that they must be debated before any determination can be made as to whether anything is indicated.

“… then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable.” – The statement that we do not have the time has no basis in fact and cannot be supported. Given the variability in estimated temperature rises over the rest of the century it beggars the imagination to believe that there is a credible “tipping point” that can be argued. The rate of approach of the presumed disaster cannot even be determined, yet there is somehow an argument to be made for when the process becomes irreversible? The only basis for estimating an increase in temperature at some future point measured in terms of decades is a set of numbers that relied on proxy data and selective weighting (extremely selective) of handpicked sets.

Note: The next paragraph is mocking and not terribly adult of me so skip it if you wa… oh, hell, it still has value. Read on. It just isn’t my most mature piece of writing.

“And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.” – It would be disastrous… how? It is absolutely possible that they might not be right – and this is the horse I’m betting on. Beyond that, why exactly is humanity going to die off? Rising sea levels are going to kill polar bears thus eliminating a primary leg in our food supply? Longer crop growing periods have relatively few fatalities associated with them. Some deserts may form and other areas will grow wetter – as they have been doing cyclically for eons – all without our assistance. The EPA-declared poison, CO2, also a proven plant nutrient is going to turn the oceans into vast puddles of acid populated by giant lobsters and shrimp aching to even the score against their once-devourers? Coast lines would change – at a rate so slow that few people are going to drown when they turn their back to the sea. The alarmism required to create calamitous consequences isn’t supported when you use day-to-day common sense.

“The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.” – Here I am going to use up my one token for true profanity in this entire rebuttal. When you say that economic and climatological systems are not simple like celestial mechanics, you shout to the world that you do not know shit about things like celestial mechanics and simple interactions of gravity and centrifugal force. Go look up “multi-body problem” or “n-body problem”. Please, don’t try to simplify something you obviously don’t study in-depth. You will improve your argument if you remain silent rather than use that example.

As you have correctly noted though, such systems are agonizingly complicated, and frankly underscores the hubris of even the scientists in the field claiming to understand them on any deep level. The estimations are not based on models that are even capable of accurately predicting known historical data, much less future events. Our models do not even predict weather days in advance, hence the great interest in satellite monitoring capable of reading conditions over the 3/4 of the earth we can’t reach – the oceans.

“All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.” – Quite true and hardly worth bringing up. I’ll concede this since it is true only as far as it goes.

“It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.”­ – Right. We also can’t be confident that we should even bother, as we don’t know if it will have any useful, meaningful, or actual significance. CO2 levels have risen and fallen many times – as much as we can rely on historical records it seems to rise preceding a cooling period.

“Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.” – We are in complete agreement that it would be very costly. Let’s pin an estimate to something in the ballpark of obscenely costly. And we agree that it would impact everyone. It would impact everyone as it tanked the economy again and continued to beat it to death – “simple” economics have borne that relationship out enough times – raise the price to manufacture goods raises the price which then reduces demand. We arrive at your final statement’s conclusion by very different means and with decidedly different meanings. Efforts being completely useless is a foregone conclusion to anyone who does not believe in AGW.

My Personal “Things” – Don’t Peek

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This website (blog) may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, religious and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. Please Note: If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.